Transfer of management training from alternative perspectives.

Abstract

One hundred seven management training evaluations were meta-analyzed to compare effect sizes for the transfer of managerial training derived from different rating sources (self, superior, peer, and subordinate) and broken down by both study- and training-related variables. For studies as a whole, and interpersonal management skills training studies in particular, transfer effects based on trainees' self-ratings, and to a lesser extent ratings from their superiors, were largest and most varied across studies. In contrast, transfer effects based on peer ratings, and particularly subordinate ratings, were substantially smaller and more homogeneous. This pattern was consistent across different sources of studies, features of evaluation design, and within a subset of 14 studies that each included all 4 rating sources. Across most rating sources, transfer of training was greatest for studies conducted in nonmilitary settings, when raters were likely to have known whether the manager being rated had attended training, when criteria were targeted to training content, when training content was derived from an analysis of tasks and skill requirements, and when training included opportunities for practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 109 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.